173 A.3d 142
Me.2017Background
- Child born drug-affected after mother’s continued drug use during pregnancy; DHHS obtained temporary custody shortly after birth.
- Paternity confirmed; father initially rejected the child but later engaged and visited regularly; father’s wife (would-be primary caregiver) has serious mental-health diagnoses and problematic behavior.
- Mother repeatedly incarcerated and continued substance abuse; failed to complete recommended substance-abuse and mental-health programs and missed or failed to sustain treatment opportunities.
- Father completed some evaluations and began counseling but disputed court findings, presented as combative with professionals, and had a positive hair test for cocaine challenged at trial.
- Trial court found, by clear and convincing evidence, parents were unwilling or unable to protect and assume responsibility for the child within a time reasonably calculated to meet the child’s needs; mother failed to make a good-faith effort to rehabilitate; termination with plan of adoption is in child’s best interest.
Issues
| Issue | Parents' Argument | State/Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to terminate parental rights | Parents argued evidence was insufficient to show unfitness or likelihood of change within child’s needed timeframe | Evidence showed ongoing substance abuse, incarcerations, mental-health issues, and partner-related jeopardy making timely reunification unlikely | Affirmed: clear-and-convincing evidence supported termination based on multiple statutory grounds |
| Best-interest determination | Parents argued termination/adoption was not in child’s best interest | Department argued permanency and stability via adoption served child’s needs given prolonged foster care and parents’ deficits | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in finding adoption served child’s best interest |
| Father’s right to counsel (temporary denial) | Father contended his right to counsel was violated when counsel was temporarily not appointed | State argued interlocutory rulings on counsel were not appealable; court noted such stripping should be rare and financial screener involvement is minimally required | Not considered on appeal (interlocutory and nonappealable), but court cautioned against stripping counsel without screening assistance |
| Denial of motion for amended/additional findings | Father argued trial court abused discretion in denying his motion for amended/additional findings | State maintained that such interlocutory orders are not appealable here; termination order itself was supported by evidence | Not considered on appeal (interlocutory and nonappealable); termination affirmed on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Caleb M., 159 A.3d 345 (Me. 2017) (standard for termination and best-interest analysis)
- In re Thomas D., 854 A.2d 195 (Me. 2004) (court must explain how parental deficits meet statutory unfitness criteria)
- In re K.M., 118 A.3d 812 (Me. 2015) (affirmance if any one supported statutory basis for termination)
- In re Thomas H., 889 A.2d 297 (Me. 2005) (discretionary best-interest determination and permanence planning)
- In re L.R., 97 A.3d 602 (Me. 2014) (orders other than termination/jeopardy/medical-treatment are not appealable)